Pages

Friday, 11 May 2018

The politics of Tsunami

A "Malay Tsunami" was prodicted. But what emerged was a "Tsunami Rakyat".

I have NO idea what that means connotatively (yes, I know it literally means "citizen's tsunami" or "people's tsunami"). People like to coin phrases and throw them around like it means anything.

And people also like to look at events and wonder, "is it Singapore's turn next?"

Is it?

That's an interesting question!

The Second Coming

Mahathir leaping back into the breach to, as he says, "correct the worst mistake of his life" - so that his not-so-worst (?) mistake can take over, is personal and unique to Dr M.

Unknown
to Dr M (or maybe he knows), his main task is to survive long enough
for Anwar to be able to stand in a By-election, get elected, and wait
for Dr M to... "step down" so Anwar can take over. Also,
you may have heard, "politics make strange bedfellows". Dr M jailed
Anwar for sodomy. Now he is in bed with... a sodomiser. Kinda apt. Or you have to admire Dr M commitment to his country.

But I digress.

How much of factor was Dr M in the ouster of BN & Najib?Let's be generous and say, he was a critical factor. If he had not had this Second Coming, Malaysians would not have dared rejected BN!(I don't believe this to be true, but of the sake of this conjecture, we will give him the benefit of the doubt. Surely he is a major media focus right now.)

So, this Tsunami Rakyat happened because Dr M jumped into the pool. (Not implying that Dr M is fat. Just that his ego is YUGE!)

So can this tsunami hit Singapore? Different pool. Need a different person to jump into the pool to cause a tsunami.

Problem.

LKY is dead.

You expect Goh Chok Tong to be as big?

No?

Maybe you are hoping Tan Cheng Bock will step up?

It would make a good story - thwarted at one Presidential Election, denied an opportunity at the second, TCB returns to challenge the PAP. But there is a world of difference between being president (which does not require a team), and being PM which requires one to head a party.

It would make a good story. But it needs a few more players. Quite a few more.

The Turning Tide

This was not a "tsunami". This was a turning of the tide that started as far back at 2008, when BN won 140 seats (down from 198), and 133 seats in 2013, and now 79 seats.

So is the tide turning in Singapore?

Well, in 2011, for the first time the PAP lost a GRC to the opposition. And then an SMC in a by-election, and failed to capture Hougang from the WP. PAP's vote share fell to 60% in 2011 - down 6.5 percentage points from 2006, and down 15 points from 2001.

But then in 2015, it's vote share went up almost 10 percentage points. And it recaptured Punggol East SMC.

If the tide is turning, it is not showing clear signs, ebbing and flowing.

And the PAP has NOT lost the supermajority in parliament.

If the tide is turning, it is turning slowly. Very slowly.

Will the turning tide wash out the PAP in the next election? At 69%, that would mean a 20 percentage point swing for the PAP to lose the popular vote like the BN did in 2013.

Not likely. Not without good reasons.

Gimme a Reason

So what made the voters angry? Was it the Mongolian model murder? Was it the 1MDB scandal? Was it the awarding of mega-project contracts to foreign companies (China)? The "selling" of Malaysia to China?

Bread-and-butter worries had weighed heavily on voters' minds, incomes were lagging the cost of living, and housing affordability had worsened, including in Johor.

Some voters (mainly urban voters) were also concerned about the corruption and the 1MDB scandal.

While differences emerged between urban and rural constituencies about how much corruption was a concern - and urban voters felt this more keenly

So what are Singaporeans angry about? What are the critical issues that voters want changed?

Most of the issues have been dealt with or are being dealt with. The unhappiness was manifested at GE 2011, when the voters swung against the PAP. The PAP in turn responded to the voter's dissatisfaction since 2011.

They implemented policies to address housing pain, severely curtailed foreign labour, and worked to improve public transit.

The political and policy response was sufficient for the PAP to win back 10 percentage point of support in 2015.

With 70% support, and continued efforts to improve the lives of Singaporeans and the transport system, even if some Singaporeans are still dissatisfied with the efforts, a swing back would not be as drastic as 20 points to lose the PAP the popular vote.

Then there is the impending GST increase. Would that make Singaporeans angry enough to vote against the PAP?

Say, "yes" for some Singaporeans. As many as 20% of voters? I doubt it.

Ok, so Singapore does not have scandals like the 1MDB, or the Mongolian model murder. But we do have the 38 Oxley Road issue. And the Keppel O&M corruption scandal. Which few people understand. And both these cases don't affect the average Singaporean.

Singaporeans are more concerned about train breakdowns, the loss of Uber, and all those damn bike sharing bikes strewn all over the place! And the train problem is being dealt with. Uber/Grab is a first world problem, and the bikes, well, I would be most interested in reading anyone's theory as to how that could make the PAP lose an election.

Fifty Shades More

The Malaysian GE this year and the loss of support for the BN is also remarkable for one thing - the possible death of race politics. Or race-based politics. BN's hold onto power is based on UMNO (the lead component party of the BN coalition warning the Malay voter than if UMNO is out of power, there would be no voice for the Malay, no one to defend Malay rights.

BN implicitly, if not explicitly, propounds the concept of Ketuanan Melayu or Malay Preeminence. You've heard Trump harp on "America First"? Well, this is like "Malays First". The BN coalition is made up of various race-based political parties and this is supposed to ensure that the major races are represented, and united in the BN coalition. Thus, BN is the ideal coalition, hypothetically, and so Malaysian should vote for them.

Until they didn't.

Singapore didn't like the race-based, nativist "Malay Malaysia" 50 shades of racism and left the federation in 1965.

Why we resist the ideologues

There are... liberal democracies where you can have an "Amos Yee" type freedom.

There are also very sad places where there is little freedom or security, and life is very hard.

And there are a few places where there is quite a lot of chaos and life is uncertain.

Then there are very few places where you can be reasonably civilised and have sufficient security and responsible freedom to have a good life.

Singapore is one such Oasis of sensibleness... we are an Oasis of order, competence, efficiency, and reasonableness in an otherwise chaotic unreasonable, incompetent WORLD. Not just the region.

If Singapore becomes a copy of a Western Liberal Democracy with all the inherent inefficiencies, silliness, drama, and chaos, it would be a very sad thing...

If Singapore breaks down and devolves into a corrupt, ineffective, unfocused, shambling chaotic third world country, it would also be a very sad thing.

There is only one place where you can find Singapore's straightforwardness, integrity, efficiency, competence, order... And that is here, in Singapore.

If we lose this, whether because we lean to much to the left, or whether we let ourselves sink into mediocrity through complacency or a sense of destiny, or divine right, it will be gone.

...so that is why we resist the ideologues.

Trees

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in.”

Reminder

“There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.” - Ernest Hemingway

The Tao of Government

"Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthen their bones."

"He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge, and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal."